Latest news with #NaomiCunningham
Daily Mail
4 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Trans lobby groups 'lied for years' that anyone self identifying as a different gender could access women's' toilets, equality chief says
Transgender people were misled about their rights to female only spaces by lobby groups, according to a senior member of an equality watchdog has said. In April a Supreme Court ruling confirmed the terms woman and sex in the 2010 Equality Act 'refer to a biological woman and biological sex'. Akua Reindorf, a barrister who is one of eight commissioners at the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), said trans people had been deceived about their rights were. Speaking in a personal capacity during a debate about the recent ruling, she said there must be a 'period of correction' to acknowledge women's right to women-only spaces. The decision made it legal for trans people to be banned from women-only sports teams, and from using bathrooms and changing rooms for the gender they lived as. These terms were later supported by interim non-statutory advice given by the EHRC last April. When an audience member at the debate raised fears about the recent Supreme Court ruling and how it could strip away trans peoples rights, barrister and panellist, Naomi Cunningham said: 'It can't be helped, I'm afraid.' In agreement with her fellow panellist, Ms Reindorf said she believed trans lobbyists were at faults for the misunderstanding. 'Unfortunately, young people and trans people have been lied to over many years about what their rights are,' she said. 'It's like Naomi said – I just can't say it in a more diplomatic way than that. They have been lied to, and there has to be a period of correction, because other people have rights' She claimed it boiled down to the law prior to the Supreme Court ruling being misunderstood due to groups contending trans people who self-identified should be treated as their preferred gender. However, this was only the case for the those who had obtained a gender recognition certificate (GRC). The barrister said the amalgamation of different rights made the Equality Act nonviable from a personal capacity. 'The catalyst for many to catch up, belatedly, with the fact that the law never permitted self-ID in the first place,' she said. As such, the feeling of a loss of right of trans people was due to an overwhelming product of 'misinformation' perpetrated by 'lobby group and activists'. Author JK Rowling backed the barrister's recent comments, saying lobby groups lied 'about what the law said'.' However, the head of gender justice at Amnesty International UK, Chiara Capraro, hit back Ms Reindorf's comments. She said: 'The EHRC has the duty to uphold the rights of everyone, including all with protected characteristics. We are concerned that it is failing to do so and is unhelpfully pitting the rights of women and trans people against each other.' A spokesman for the EHRC told The Guardian: 'Akua Reindorf KC spoke at this event in a personal capacity. This was made clear at the event and in the video recording published online. 'As Britain's equality regulator, the Equality and Human Rights Commission upholds and enforces the Equality Act 2010 to ensure everyone is treated fairly, consistent with the Act. 'Our board come from all walks of life and bring with them a breadth of skills and experience. This helps us take impartial decisions, which are always based on evidence and the law.'
Telegraph
4 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Trans people ‘lied to over their rights to enter female-only spaces'
Trans people have been 'lied to over many years' over their rights to enter female-only spaces, a senior member of Britain's equality watchdog has said. Akua Reindorf, one of eight commissioners at the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), said transgender people had been misled about their entitlements and there 'has to be a period of correction' to recognise the women's right to single-sex spaces. Ms Reindorf made the comments at a debate about the Supreme Court ruling that the word 'sex' in the Equality Act refers only to biological sex, and not to a person's gender identity. The ruling confirmed it was lawful for female-only sports teams to exclude trans women and for trans people to be barred from lavatories and changing rooms for the opposite sex. This was later backed up by interim guidance from the EHRC. Asked by an audience member about concerns that the ruling could roll back the rights of trans people, Naomi Cunningham, a barrister and panellist at the debate, said trans people 'will have to give way', adding: 'It can't be helped, I'm afraid.' Ms Reindorf, speaking next, agreed, saying: 'Unfortunately, young people and trans people have been lied to over many years about what their rights are. 'It's like Naomi said – I just can't say it in a more diplomatic way than that. They have been lied to, and there has to be a period of correction, because other people have rights.' Self-ID 'never permitted' Ms Reindorf, also a barrister and speaking in a personal capacity, said she believed the fault lay with trans lobbyists. Before the Supreme Court ruling, the law was commonly misunderstood, she said, blaming pressure groups that argued that trans people who self-identified should be treated in line with their preferred gender identity, when that was only the case for people with a gender recognition certificate (GRC). She said the Supreme Court ruling was 'the catalyst for many to catch up, belatedly, with the fact that the law never permitted self-ID in the first place'. She added: 'The fact is that, until now, trans people without GRCs were being grievously misled about their legal rights. 'The correction of self-ID policies and practices will inevitably feel like a loss of rights for trans people. This unfortunate position is overwhelmingly a product of the misinformation which was systematically disseminated over a long period by lobby groups and activists.' Speaking at the event, organised by the London School of Economics law school, Ms Reindorf said the impact of the Supreme Court ruling was very clear. She condemned what she called 'this huge farce with organisations up and down the country wringing their hands and creating working groups and so on, and people in society worrying that they will have nowhere to go to the toilet'. Restoring women's rights She was backed by JK Rowling, the author of Harry Potter, who accused trans lobby groups of 'lying about what the law said'. Ms Reindorf added trans lobby groups argued trans women – who she called 'trans-identified men' – were entitled to the same rights as women under the law. 'This false interpretation, which removed sex-based rights from women and girls and gave trans-identified men additional rights, may have been imposed upon large sections of society, but it was always illegal, as countless legal experts and grassroots women's groups fought to have recognised. 'The Supreme Court restored to women rights [what] they'd lost in practice. Trans-identified men lost nothing in law, because they'd never had the rights they claimed they had ... Nothing has been taken from trans-identified people except a false belief, and women have simply regained what they should have had all along.' But Chiara Capraro, the head of gender justice at Amnesty International UK, criticised Ms Reindorf's comments. She said: 'The EHRC has the duty to uphold the rights of everyone, including all with protected characteristics. We are concerned that it is failing to do so and is unhelpfully pitting the rights of women and trans people against each other.'
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Rules forcing barristers to promote diversity dropped after backlash
Plans to force barristers to promote diversity initiatives have been scrapped after the proposed overhaul sparked a backlash from top legal figures. The Bar Standards Board (BSB) said it will not be moving forward with plans to overhaul rules requiring barristers to actively advance diversity in their jobs. The proposals, which were first put forward last September, would have seen barristers obliged to 'act in a way that advances equality, diversity and inclusion' as one of the 10 'core duties' expected of them professionally. Currently, the BSB's core duties simply say that barristers 'must not discriminate unlawfully against any person'. However, the BSB was planning changes that would 'place a positive obligation' on barristers to promote diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). Barristers who failed to comply with the new rule would have risked serious sanctions from the BSB, including permanent disbarment and fines of up to £50,000. The BSB said on Tuesday it has now abandoned its plans to amend 'Core Duty Eight' following the launch of a public consultation last September. It comes after senior barristers and large industry groups raised concerns over the regulator's proposals. The Bar Council, a trade body which represents over 18,000 barristers in England and Wales, had opposed the BSB's plans on the basis that the plans lacked clarity. Barbara Mills KC, chair of the Bar Council, said: 'A change to Core Duty Eight would lack the clarity needed for barristers to be able to comply.' Some barristers had separately opposed the plans on the basis that ambiguity surrounding the interpretation of the rules left them open to abuse. Naomi Cunningham, a barrister specialising in discrimination law, warned the proposed amendment risked being 'ruthlessly weaponised by activists to suppress dissent.' Meanwhile, Andreas Gledhill, KC, and Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, a former justice minister, branded the planned changes as 'coercive, illiberal and dangerous', saying the BSB was effectively setting in statute 'vague, uncertain and in some cases highly subjective' value judgments that had no legal basis. They added that they 'unequivocally' supported equal opportunity and opposed discrimination in 'all its forms'. The BSB said it will now seek to increase diversity at the Bar using other regulatory tools, including by setting 'clear expectations for the progress that we want to see over the next five years'. 'We remain determined to see a step change in progress in encouraging a diverse legal profession,' the BSB said. Mark Neale, director general at the BSB, said: 'The challenge here is a practical one, not an ideological one ... at root, this requires a change of culture. Such a change requires the support and active collaboration of the profession.' The BSB's reversal comes as an array of major businesses, including some of the world's largest law firms, have overhauled their own approaches to diversity initiatives amid Donald Trump's war on DEI. Law firms including White & Case and Freshfields both dropped their diversity targets in the US in response to the Trump administration's attacks on corporate diversity initiatives. Some law firms have effectively been banned from working for the US federal government amid the DEI backlash. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Rules forcing barristers to promote diversity dropped after backlash
Plans to force barristers to promote diversity initiatives have been scrapped after the proposed overhaul sparked a backlash from top legal figures. The Bar Standards Board (BSB) said it will not be moving forward with plans to overhaul rules requiring barristers to actively advance diversity in their jobs. The proposals, which were first put forward last September, would have seen barristers obliged to 'act in a way that advances equality, diversity and inclusion' as one of the 10 'core duties' expected of them professionally. Currently, the BSB's core duties simply say that barristers 'must not discriminate unlawfully against any person'. However, the BSB was planning changes that would 'place a positive obligation' on barristers to promote diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). Barristers who failed to comply with the new rule would have risked serious sanctions from the BSB, including permanent disbarment and fines of up to £50,000. The BSB said on Tuesday it has now abandoned its plans to amend 'Core Duty Eight' following the launch of a public consultation last September. It comes after senior barristers and large industry groups raised concerns over the regulator's proposals. The Bar Council, a trade body which represents over 18,000 barristers in England and Wales, had opposed the BSB's plans on the basis that the plans lacked clarity. Barbara Mills KC, chair of the Bar Council, said: 'A change to Core Duty Eight would lack the clarity needed for barristers to be able to comply.' Some barristers had separately opposed the plans on the basis that ambiguity surrounding the interpretation of the rules left them open to abuse. Naomi Cunningham, a barrister specialising in discrimination law, warned the proposed amendment risked being 'ruthlessly weaponised by activists to suppress dissent.' Meanwhile, Andreas Gledhill, KC, and Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, a former justice minister, branded the planned changes as 'coercive, illiberal and dangerous', saying the BSB was effectively setting in statute 'vague, uncertain and in some cases highly subjective' value judgments that had no legal basis. They added that they 'unequivocally' supported equal opportunity and opposed discrimination in 'all its forms'. The BSB said it will now seek to increase diversity at the Bar using other regulatory tools, including by setting 'clear expectations for the progress that we want to see over the next five years'. 'We remain determined to see a step change in progress in encouraging a diverse legal profession,' the BSB said. Mark Neale, director general at the BSB, said: 'The challenge here is a practical one, not an ideological one ... at root, this requires a change of culture. Such a change requires the support and active collaboration of the profession.' The BSB's reversal comes as an array of major businesses, including some of the world's largest law firms, have overhauled their own approaches to diversity initiatives amid Donald Trump's war on DEI. Law firms including White & Case and Freshfields both dropped their diversity targets in the US in response to the Trump administration's attacks on corporate diversity initiatives. Some law firms have effectively been banned from working for the US federal government amid the DEI backlash. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Daily Mail
12-05-2025
- Health
- Daily Mail
Taxpayers face huge compensation bill for women denied single sex changing rooms
Taxpayers face a massive bill to compensate female public sector workers over the failure to provide single-sex toilets and changing rooms, it was warned yesterday. The NHS and a host of other organisations are at risk of demands for thousands of pounds to settle harassment claims by women who fell foul of unlawful 'trans inclusion' policies. It comes after the Supreme Court stated last month that the legal definition of a woman is based solely on biological sex rather than gender choices in a major victory for feminist campaigners. But there are now warnings that female employees will be able to launch legal challenges – arguing that having to share facilities with trans women amounts to harassment. Last night Scottish Tory equalities spokesman Tess White said: 'The Supreme Court ruling didn't rewrite the law, it simply reinforced what we already knew – biological women have a legal right to access single-sex spaces. 'This isn't hard to understand, it's basic common sense. Instead of upholding the law, John Swinney is still pandering to gender extremists and leaving the door open to more costly lawsuits that the taxpayer will pay for. 'Enough is enough – he must urgently issue a clear public sector directive requiring organisations to uphold the law.' Naomi Cunningham, the barrister representing nurse Sandie Peggie in her employment tribunal case against NHS Fife, told the Mail: 'The Supreme Court ruling will be seismic in its effect and one of the potential consequences is that organisations which have pursued 'trans inclusive' policies could face harassment claims. 'Those public sector bodies such as the NHS – and private companies which have policies allowing trans women to use female toilets and threaten women with disciplinary action if they complain – for example, could be seen to have created policies designed to intimidate their entire female workforce. 'If employers were able to demonstrate that they were changing their policies as a result of the Supreme Court ruling, it may act as a mitigation – but it wouldn't get them off the hook. 'The Supreme Court ruling did not change the law – it revealed the law as it always was, and as it always should have been interpreted. An employee has three months to launch a tribunal claim and could do so on the basis of harassment due to trans inclusion policies which they believe discriminated against them.' There were also concerns last night that some public liability or employer insurance policies could be invalidated. For example, the insurance policy for a football club may no longer cover a female footballer who is injured in a tackle by a trans woman – a biological male. Ms Cunningham said 'as a matter of great urgency', organisations should check their policies to ensure full compliance. A Scottish Government spokesman said: 'Following publication of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) interim update [following the Supreme Court ruling], ministers have written to the EHRC to ask them to confirm that they agree that no public body, service provider or other association should issue specific guidance before the EHRC code of practice and guidance is finalised. 'As the EHRC is the enforcer and regulator of the Equality Act, we expect all organisations to consider its revised code of practice and guidance when published to ensure there is a consistent and clear understanding of the correct application of the law for all involved in this complex area.'
